On August 7, Ukrainian forces launched an infantry assault nine miles across the Russian border. It was aimed at the Sudzha gas hub - the only point of entry for Russian gas into the EU (it also supplies Ukraine). This diversionary attack has two purposes. Firstly, to attack Russian energy infrastructure, and secondly, and most importantly, to draw in thousands of Russian troops, equipment, and planes so they can be destroyed piecemeal by Ukrainian drones and missiles.
President Joe Biden, with agreement from other NATO members, has supplied billions of dollars of advanced weapons to Ukraine on the stipulation that they are not used on targets inside Russian territory. Mostly the Ukrainians have accepted these terms. Of course, that excludes the Ukrainian territory that is occupied by the Russians, including Crimea and the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.
To date Biden has exercised caution. As he has repeatedly stated the weapons supplied are to be used to defend Ukraine, not to attack Russian citizens. The White House seemed to have been caught off-guard by the August 7 land assault but were supportive. As Biden’s presidency ends in a few months, will he abandon this cautious approach and remove these limits?
After the May 10 assault on the large city of Kharkiv, 18 miles from the Russian border, Biden slightly relaxed the restrictions. It seems to have worked as the assault has stalled.
Several members of the American Congress have suggested to President Biden that they allow the Ukrainians to use American supplied ATACM missiles beyond the given range. Two months ago, Republican Congressman Michael McCaul challenged the Biden administration to remove the restrictions. They remain hesitant.
Nevertheless, every day the Ukrainian military is striking deeper into Russian territory.
According to Ukrainian President Zelensky, Ukraine can home-manufacture one million drones in 2024. Some of these drones can fly extremely long distances - although the further they fly the lighter their payload.
On August 7, Ukraine struck Lipetsk military air base, more than 217 miles from Ukraine's border.
On August 3, Ukrainian drones destroyed ammunition depots at the Morozovsk military airfield, 111 miles from the Ukrainian border.
On July 27, Ukraine launched drones at Murmansk Airfield and claimed to have destroyed a TU-22M3 strategic bomber, and several helicopters. Russia has not confirmed the losses. The extraordinary issue here is that the airfield is over 1100 miles from Ukraine.
On the same night, Ukrainian forces conducted a drone strike against a Russian oil depot in Polevaya, Kursk Oblast, 450 miles away.
On July 9, the Ukrainian destroyed an ammunition base in the Voronezh Oblast, about 350 miles from the Ukrainian border. Once again, they used their locally manufactured drones.
On April 2, a Ukrainian drone struck Taneco, Russia's third-largest oil refinery, about 800 miles from the front lines.
Attacks on military infrastructure enter an ethical ‘grey zone.’ While Russian military bases and equipment seem legitimate targets in wartime, what of bridges, airports, railways, and power stations that also have civilian uses?
Ukraine and their NATO allies seem to have accepted oil refineries as legitimate targets. There is some chatter on social media that technicians in Russia are looking to quit their jobs at these refineries.
Regardless of accepted ethical norms, Russia repeatedly attacks civilians and on July 31, launched 89 Russian drones on the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv.
The Russians are manufacturing their own drones with cooperation from Iran. However, there are serious doubts about their capability and effectiveness, compared to the Ukrainian drones. The Institute for the Study of War reports that some Russian forces are reportedly trying to capture, repurpose, and utilize Ukrainian drones.
Will the recently supplied F-16 fighter jets make a difference?
The F-16 fighters supplied by the U.S. and allies such as Denmark and The Netherlands, are supplied on the proviso that they only operate 25 miles away from the Russian border. Of course, this is also a practical restriction as they are vulnerable to the very effective s300 ground-to-air missile systems.
The F-16’s will mainly be used to intercept the heavy ballistic missiles which are destroying Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. Nevertheless, recent demonstrations of jet-launched inexpensive missiles at the recent American-led RIMPAC Pacific exercises, should worry the Russians. It demonstrates that the F-16 planes in Ukraine could launch hard-to-detect missiles directly at targets deep inside Russia.
How has Putin responded?
His first reaction was to place several expensive (U.S.$13 million) Pantsir-S1 air defense systems around his spacious mansion north of Moscow, about 930 miles from Ukraine.
Secondly, and not for the first time in this war, he has threatened a tactical (short-range) nuclear strike in the area. On June 11 he said, “If, God forbid, it comes to strikes, everyone should realize that Russia has an early warning system for missile attacks. The U.S. has it. Europe does not. They are more or less defenseless in this sense.” He called the August 7 land assault a “provocation”.
Finally, he has tried to appear more conciliarity. He agreed to the recent exchange of Western and Russian prisoners. He has even agreed to ceasefire talks with Ukraine (with stringent conditions).
The strikes inside Russia are upsetting his political base. This, and the loss of a major part of his workforce to the war adding to the economic strains on the Russian economy, are behind his circumspect response to date. Regardless, his long-term goal of subjugation of all of Ukraine is unlikely to change.
Patrick Drennan is a journalist based in New Zealand, with a degree in American history and economics.
